posted 09-06-2004 09:27 AM         

------------------

Current mods: Mopar dual exhaust & front mudflaps; MacMotorsports Air Intake;
Real Rod Air Patrol; Graphics by Balistek Designs; ($8) Chrome grille; Chrome
tire valve-stem covers; Painted rear bumper lettering; Prowler Pro Gears; Synthetic
Oil; Raybestos Ceramic Brake Pads; TGF Door Panel Inserts & Headrest Covers;
SheepskinExpress Sheepskin Seatcovers; Grille Light; Pinstriping by Bo Boring;
Painted Valve Cover; Window Tinting; Windshield Visor Banner; Front Bumper
Removal / Relocation of Front Turn Signal Lights; Real Rod Transmission Cooler
Cover, Sill and Carpet Covers, Aero Front Covers and Roadster Rear Pan, rear
bumpers removed; rear mudflaps; painted calipers; Prowler Products by Gary
Drilled Rotors, front and rear; Painted tach; Jay's Aluminum Billet Center Caps
w/shimmers, Chrome Lugnuts and Chrome Radio Bezel Shimmer; Dash Rings;
Windshield Wiper Arm Removal; Fender Trim; Speaker Replacement; Painted
Plenum; Painted Radiator Crossmember; Painted Rear Mudflaps; Air Patrol
graphics; Aluminum engine compartment support bars; PlasmaGlow 7-color LED
Underbody Kit; Dash Designs Dash Mat; and Airbrushed Rear Trim Panel.

More 'Pumpkin' photos . . . . . More cars and other stuff

New pictures in Personal Scrapbook (02/23/03)

"I may have to grow older, but I do not have to grow up!"

posted 09-06-2004 03:35 PM         

If I had to guess, it's because it's not about the Bush administration specifically - it's about something much bigger and deeper and darker and more mysterious and unquantifiable. How could any major media outlet, after so relentlessly reporting "the official version" of the story for 3 years, suddenly stand up and claim that what happened at the Pentagon that day was not what was originally and perpetually stated, but instead part of a far reaching conspiracy devised in the shadows, implemented in broad daylight, then, as if by some massive mind control "machine", manipulated flawlessly via a controlled stream of disinformation by some nameless, faceless group at the very highest level of power and influence, without sounding as ridiculous as I just did?

Besides, people don't want to believe that something like that could actually happen - it would undermine their sense of safety and security in the broadest sense possible. In all honesty, even I would prefer to pretend that something like that couldn't happen. But I'd be still be pretending. I'm not suggesting that that is what DID happen - just that I couldn't declare unmitigatingly that it could not.

If I say anymore I'm gonna start sounding like Fox Mulder. Since I plan to meet many of you at future Prowler events and would prefer you to not think I'm a can or two short of a six pack, I think I'll quit right here

posted 09-07-2004 04:44 PM         

The engines are mounted on the wings. The wings were allegedly cremated. How did the engine not only escape disintegration, but propel itself forward two to three rings beyond where any of the rest of the plane got to? (Three rings beyond refers to some scenarios that the plane never actually penetrated the building but crashed just outside).

The engines are made from Titanium. At this point he has hammered the hell out of Aluminum and has everyone thinking that way but anyone who knows Ti knows the **** is damn near indestructible when put up against anything and at high velocity will penetrate anything. Also it takes a hell of a lot more temperature to melt Titanium than Aluminum.

Made me wonder so I did some research. And actually turns out to be a front for a FROG named Thierry Meyssan.

See: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

posted 09-07-2004 05:14 PM         

Always look at the source before you make a logical judgment.

One, if not this plane, then where is the plane and the folks in it?

Two, we know from the WTC planes that they were flying as fast as possible and with full loads of fuel. Speaking of which, where are the WTC planes? We all saw them go in, yet nothing came out. No tail hanging out the side of the building, no wings sheared off, nothing.

Three, yes, these morons weren't great pilots. They didn't have to be. They just had to hold it fairly steady and hit the gas.

Four, cordite doesn't make a huge fireball that lasts for hours and melts the entire building. How did this guy get close enough to smell it??

posted 09-07-2004 09:04 PM         

"Hunt the Boeing!" is a provocative display of smoke and mirrors, but there's little else to recommend the site. Its authors present a fraction of the available evidence in a highly selective, distorted, titillating way, proving absolutely nothing — except, perhaps, that there's always room for another conspiracy theory.

While making few explicit allegations, the authors argue, in effect, that based on photographic and physical evidence, the damage to the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 could not have been caused by a crashing jetliner, contrary to the official and overwhelmingly accepted explanation.

The argument is weak. For starters, it conveniently ignores some of the most obvious, compelling evidence. For example:

Eyewitness testimony of bystanders who saw and/or heard American Airlines Flight 77 approach and collide with the Pentagon

The recovery of both black boxes belonging to the Boeing 757 from the Pentagon wreckage

The recovery and identification of the remains of all but one of the people known to be aboard Flight 77
Of course, the evasion of bedrock evidence is standard fare for conspiracy theorists. If pressed they would doubtless claim that all of the above must have been planted or manufactured, but they can't even prove such a claim plausible, let alone true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Eschewing plain facts and common sense, they ask us to focus instead on misleadingly posed condundrums such as the following:

Question: "Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?"
Answer: It didn't only damage the outside. According to the Washington Post, structural damage extended at least 150 feet inside, well into the third ("C") ring of the building.

Question: "Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?"
Answer: It didn't just crash into the ground floor. According to official statements and news reports, it took out both the first and second floors on impact.

Question: "Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?"
Answer: No, but we can in this one credited to a U.S. Navy photographer [enlarged version]. Bear in mind, eyewitnesses say the Boeing 757 virtually disintegrated when it struck the reinforced wall of the building. Given that, and the tremendous forward momentum of the aircraft on impact, the assumption that a significant amount of debris ought to be visible in front of the Pentagon wouldn't seem justified.

According to a CNN article published the day after the attack, Michael Tamillow, a battalion chief of the Fairfax County, Virginia Fire Department, reported that parts of the Boeing 757 fuselage had indeed been recovered from the wreckage by FBI investigators (the same team that later found the black boxes). "No large pieces apparently survived," the article said.

One visitor who surveyed the crash site a few days later, Representative Judy Biggert of Illinois, told reporters she saw remnants of the jetliner: "There was a seat from a plane," she said, "there was part of the tail and then there was a part of green metal, I could not tell what it was, a part of the outside of the plane." (Chicago Sun-Times, 16 Sep, 2001)

About Poll
Do you believe AA Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon?
Yes.
No.
I'm not sure.

Current Results

(For a more detailed consideration of these and further "Hunt the Boeing" puzzles, please read the excellent commentary by engineer Paul Boutin and astrophysicist Patrick Di Justo, Web-posted on March 14.)

You're no doubt wondering who's behind these flights of fancy and what, exactly, they're driving at. Well, according to the French newspaper Le Monde, the culprit is Thierry Meyssan, well-known leftist radical and president of the Voltaire Network, a controversial site devoted to "the fight for freedom and secularity." His son, Raphaël Meyssan, is credited as the Webmaster of both the Voltaire Network and Utopian Asylum, which, uncoincidentally, hosts "Hunt the Boeing!"

What are they trying to prove? That the attacks of September 11 were perpetrated not by foreign terrorists, but by the U.S. government upon its own citizens — a conspiracy theory in the grand tradition.

To quote the late Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

So far we haven't seen any proof at all.

Sources and further reading:

Hunt the Boeing!
The original site on Asile.org
'Hunt the Boeing' Answers
Debunked by Paul Boutin and Patrick Di Justo

'Hunt the Boeing!'
Debunked by the Urban Legends Reference Pages

Un avion a bel et bien frappé le Pentagone
From Le Monde, 20 March 2002 (in French)

Internet véhicule une rumeur extravagante sur le 11 septembre
From Le Monde, 20 March 2002 (in French)

No Hope of Finding More Survivors at Pentagon
From CNN, 12 Sep 2001

Images Show September 11 Pentagon Crash
From CNN, 8 March 2002

Interactive Look at Pentagon Attack
From USA Today

The Battle-Scarred Pentagon
From Jane's Information Group, 13 Sep 2001

Rebuilding the Pentagon
Graphics showing structural damage caused by Flight 77, from the Washington Post

Experts ID 184 Pentagon Fatalities
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology

posted 09-07-2004 09:06 PM         

But we couldn't help taking up the challenge anyway.

As lifelong propellerheads who firmly believe in asking questions, we found Hunt the Boeing an engaging puzzle, despite its tragic subject matter, but one full of obvious errors and misleading questions. Since many of our friends continue to ask us if we've seen the site, we decided to document our answers to it, which we wrote separately. As might be expected, Patrick focused on the math and science (you may remember his widely circulated napkin math on the WTC attack), while Paul picked apart the wording of the questions.

See the original site for photos that accompany the questions.

Question No 1
The first satellite image shows the section of the building that was hit by the Boeing. In the image below, the second ring of the building is also visible. It is clear that the aircraft only hit the first ring. The four interior rings remain intact. They were only fire-damaged after the initial explosion. Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?

Paul: The question and photos are misleading: Parts of the plane penetrated the ground floors of the second and third rings of the building. These photos show only their intact roofs. Eyewitnesses and news reporters have talked about the twelve-foot hole punched through the inside wall of the second ring by one of the plane’s engines.

More importantly, the question focuses on the plane’s size and weight, making it sound extraordinarily heavy, but leaves out the size and weight of the Pentagon – America’s largest office building with three times the floor space of the Empire State Building - as well as the difference in relative stiffness and energy absorption between a building and an airplane. Each side of the Pentagon contains over 100,000 tons of Potomac sand mixed into the steel-reinforced concrete under its limestome facade. There are nearly 10,000 concrete piles anchoring each side of the building. And in the wake of bombings in Oklahoma City and Saudi Arabia, that portion of the Pentagon had just been reinforced with a computationally modeled lattice of steel tubes designed to prevent it from collapsing after an explosion.

By contrast, the plane is only 100 tons of custom alloys stretched thin enough to fly. It’s not like a giant bullet; more like a giant racing bike. Even so, the plane knocked down 10,000 tons of building material - 100 times its own weight - in the crash and subsequent collapse. Another 57,000 tons of the Pentagon were damaged badly enough to be torn down. The Brobdingnagian scale of the Pentagon makes the total area of damage seem small, but it would hold several Silicon Valley office buildings, or an airport terminal.

Patrick: Watch the videotapes of the planes hitting the World Trade Center. They were traveling at approximately 400 mph, and they hit an aluminum and glass building. An entire plane went in, and hardly anything came out the other side, 208 feet away.

Here we have a plane traveling at nearly 250 mph (just over 1/2 the velocity of the WTC planes, meaning just over 1/4 of their kinetic energy), hitting the ground (which would absorb much of that energy), and only then sliding at a much slower speed into a steel-and-kevlar-reinforced concrete and brick building. Obviously, it's not going to go very far. Still, parts of the plane penetrated into the C ring.

Question No 2
The two photographs in question 2 show the building just after the attack. We may observe that the aircraft only hit the ground floor. The four upper floors collapsed towards 10.10 am. The building is 26 yards high. Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?

Paul: Again the question contains incorrect facts in its setup: As reported in the New York Times, the plane struck between the first and second floors of the building. The high-res version of the photo shows a two story high hole in side of the building. Don't look where the fire truck is directing its water, but towards the center of the photo – two floors out of four are knocked out of the outside wall.

Patrick: The plane hit the ground first, then slid into the building. If the landing wheels were not down and locked, the full height of the plane would extend upwards into the second floor of the building, which is what happened.

Question No 3
The photograph above shows the lawn in front of the damaged building. You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?

Paul: : Yet another leading question ("you'll remember..."), but one looking in the wrong place anyway. At 250 mph, the plane did not stop at the outside of the building. Security camera photos and eyewitness accounts from many credible people, including AP reporter Dave Winslow, agree that the plane completely disappeared into the building. If you’ve seen photos of airline crashes after the fire is out, they often look more like landfill sites than anything recognizable as having been an airplane.

But since the question more literally asks for a photo showing airliner debris on the lawn, here's one. Here's another.

Patrick: The Pentagon burned (or at least smoldered) for several days. Was this photograph taken on September 11? Or was it taken after the wreckage was moved away?

Question No 4
The photograph in question 4 shows a truck pouring sand over the lawn of the Pentagon. Behind it a bulldozer is seen spreading gravel over the turf. Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?

Patrick: My father was a construction engineer. He would only put a crane onto a grass lawn in an extreme emergency, and only after getting indemnified against damages. No, the first thing he would do is to lay down a pathway of steel plates, then cover them with gravel, to prevent his equipment from getting bogged down in the soft earth. When you see in that picture is a roadway being built to bring the heavy equipment across the lawn.

Paul: You don’t have to be a construction worker to recognize a road being built over the lawn, to support the vehicles dismantling the damaged building and hauling away debris. I can’t find any news reports (or people who remember any) about Donald Rumsfeld personally ordering this work done. I suspect the statement is false, and was added to make the activity seem more suspicious.

Question No 5
The photographs in Question 5 show representations of a Boeing 757-200 superimposed on the section of the building that was hit. Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?

Patrick: I'm not certain the models are to scale, and they're certainly not in the correct orientation. Since the plane hit the ground and skidded into the building, enough energy was lost by the initial impact and friction with the ground that the engines probably did not penetrate the building.

Paul: If you’re going to doctor evidence, do it right: Eyewitness accounts say the plane hit from 45 degrees to the side. Adjust the silhouettes properly, and fix the parallax effect in the second photo. The plane fits the impact area pretty well: Don't look at the collapsed upper floors, but at the wider swatch knocked out of the ground floor. I would expect the wings, being weaker than the building, to collapse on the way in. But with no previous crashes of the sort to guide us, we can't possibly predict what should have happened. If there's anything we learned that day, it's that we are poor judges of what is and isn't possible.

Question No 6
The quotations in Question 6 correspond to statements made by Arlington County Fire Chief, Ed Plaugher, at a press conference held by Assistant Defence Secretary, Victoria Clarke, on 12 September 2001, at the Pentagon.

When asked by a journalist: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?"

"First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing."

"You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."

When asked by a journalist: "Where is the jet fuel?"

"We have what we believe is a puddle right there that the -- what we believe is to be the nose of the aircraft. So -"

Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?

Paul: Quoting people verbatim to make them sound like they are dissembling is an old journalists’ trick, as any Doonesbury reader knows. I think Chief Plaugher answered the question pretty well: There’s a puddle (of melted metal, not jet fuel – he’s not directly answering the reporter’s idiotic question) that was the nose, and a few small pieces visible, but no large sections.

Patrick: Are any government officials telling any journalists anything these days?

Question No 7
The two photographs in question 7 were taken just after the attack. They show the precise spot on the outer ring where the Boeing struck. Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?

Paul: The answer is front and center in the photo, maybe to make us think it can’t be that obvious: The two-story high impact hole (also seen in the photo for Question No 2) is immediately to the right of the fireman, partly hidden by the spray of water from the fire truck. Look at the second high-res photo and you can't miss it. Are we supposed to think it’s a two-story archway of some sort? See pre-crash photos or the surviving sides for comparison.

Patrick: In enlargement #1, the impact hole fits in the rectangle formed from pixel(1232,1088) to pixel(1492, 1545).

After that, I didn’t bother to look at enlargement #2.